George Knightand the Sin Problem
George R. Knight is a professor of Church His-
tory at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Semi-
nary in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
He also writes extensively on topics of interest to
church members. We can respect his writing skill and
ability to quote non-Adventist philosophers and theo-
logians, but we should be aware of the fact that he
uses standard new theology techniques to present
those concepts:
1 - Redefining concepts, so that they no longer
mean what they originally meant in the Word of
God.
2 - Downgrading essential concepts, especially
obedience by faith in Christ to the law of God, and
the principles outlined in the Inspired Writings.
3 - Condemning good practices by assigning
bad motives to them.
4 - Splitting concepts apart in order to more
easily repudiate them.
5 - Using either-or logic: Either this is right or
that is right; they cannot both be right.
In this study, we will briefly overview two of his
books:
The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Holiness, 1992,
Pacific Press. (Pharisee)
I Used to be Perfect, 1994, Pacific Press. (Per-
fect)
The names, within parentheses, are the working
titles we will use in reference citations in this present
study.
The Pharsee’s Guide and I Used to Be Perfect
continually repeat one another. Pharisee is the more
comprehensive of the two, but those topics which are
discussed in Perfect are more logically arranged.
THE NATURE OF SIN
In chapter 1 of I Used to Be Perfect, Knight cor-
rectly states that “different views of sin lead to radi-
cally different roads to salvation” (pp. 17-18); but he
then presents an incorrect definition of sin, declar-
ing that sin is not really acts of wrongdoing. But,
instead, sin is a wrong attitude.
“Eating rats, snakes, and snails, or even hogs
————————————————————
In all quotations from Knight’s book, I Used to Be
Perfect, words which he wrote in full caps have been
rendered in italics.
is not sin. Sabbath breaking is not sin. Murder is
not sin. Theft is not sin . . They may be sins—
maybe—but they are not sin. Sin is love.”—Per-
fect, 9.
Knight concludes this chapter by again stating that
“sin is love” (p. 20). His position is that disobeying
God’s law or any other commandment or principle
given in Scripture is not sin. He repeatedly states
that it is only self-love and separation from Christ
which is sinful. According to him, eating the fruit
was not the sin which got our first parents in trouble;
for that was an act of behavior; and wrongful behav-
ior is not sin. Only self-love and a wrong relationship
with God is sin.
Such a concept can appear confusing, for it seems
to have some truth to it while denying other truths.
What is the key to this maze? It is the realization that,
in this book, Knight is redefining terms, splitting
terms, and rejecting portions which are split off.
As new theology advocates generally do, Knight
downgrades the importance of obeying God’s In-
spired Writings. He does this by telling us that “sin”
is not disobedience or wrongful behavior, but it is
liking ourselves more than we like God. So Knight
is essentially saying that sin is not wrongful behavior,
but something more intangible, an attitude of mind.
As he explains elsewhere in these two books, it is not
so important whether or not you violate Scriptural
principles—as long as your heart is right with God. It
is liking God which counts, not the behavior.
The truth is that we should obey God’s Word,
AND we should remain in right relation to Him!
Both are vital. Without the help of Christ, we can-
not obey the law of God.
The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy clearly define
sin. In fact, God’s Word declares there is only one
clear definition of sin in the Bible. That definition
is not “self-love” or “separation from God”; it is
breaking God’s law.
“Our only definition of sin is that given in the
Word of God; it is ‘the transgression of the law’; it
is the outworking of a principle at war with the
great law of love which is the foundation of the
divine government.”—Great Controversy, 493.
In chapter two of his book, The Pharisee’s Guide
to Perfect Holiness, Knight again states his position
that resisting sin is not the solution to the problem.
“They [the Pharisees] thought that they could
overcome sin through overcoming sins a, b, and c
2 Waymarks
. . Nothing has been solved by our external tinker-
ing, in spite of all the effort we may have ex-
pended.”—Pharisee, 35.
This brings us to another major device used by
new theology advocates: applying the either-or tech-
nique to obedience. New theology preachers and writ-
ers present it this way: “Either we trust wholly to
Christ and do not try to obey His law, or we try to
obey His law in our own strength. There is no other
alternative, and only the first is acceptable to God.”
Obviously, the truth of the matter is combin-
ing the two: “We can obey God’s law when we rely
on Christ’s enabling grace to help us do it. Apart
from His merits, we cannot do any good thing; but,
in His enabling strength, we can do all things that
He asks of us in His Inspired Word. It requires both
a connection with Christ and a determination to
live right.”
Knight’s position is partially based on the Catho-
lic Original Sin error.
“The concept of original or initial sin helps us
understand both ourselves and the world around
us, even though we cannot fully understand the
mechanics of its transmission. Without some idea
of original sin, wrote Blaise Pascal, ‘we remain in-
comprehensible to ourselves.’ ”—Pharisee, 37.
Pascal may have understood many mathematical
concepts, but he did not have a clear understanding
of why we are prompted to sin. We are tempted by
the devil, not by original sin within us.
But Knight believes that inherent sin within
us causes us to sin, as we note in this statement he
quotes from Edward Vick:
“ ‘To recognize that we are sinners means that
we recognize there is a power that lords it over us
and prevents us from being what God intends us
to be. That power is the power of sin.’ ”—Phari-
see, 34.
On page 45, Knight acknowledges the existence
of the Spirit of Prophecy definition of sin (the Great
Controversy, 493, statement, quoted earlier).
“I know the Bible says that ‘sin is the transgres-
sion of the law’ (1 John 3:4) and that Ellen White
said that ‘the only definition of sin is that it is the
transgression of the law.”—Pharisee, 45.
But elsewhere in the same book, he negates that
Great Controversy statement.
“At this juncture, it is important to recognize
that the most comprehensive definition of sin is
not sin as transgression of the law.”—Pharisee,
53.
Knight then quotes Romans 14:23: “Whatever is
not from faith is sin.” Ellen White knew that verse,
yet maintained that 1 John 3:4 was the only clear-cut
definition of sin. (Another Bible verse is James 4:17.
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to
him it is sin.” But that is not a clear-cut definition of
sin either.)
Knight goes on to explain that sin is a wrong rela-
tion to God.
“Sin is a relational concept . . Sin is not a bro-
ken relationship to a code of law, but a rebellious
and broken relationship to the Lord of the law.”—
Pharisee, 47.
Is sin a wrong relationship to God or is it the
transgression of the law? Once again, we are pre-
sented with a seemingly mystifying question. The rea-
son it appears mystifying is the way it is presented—
as an either-or choice, either this or that. The correct
answer is both, because both are in the law.
Someone will say, “How can a correct relation-
ship with God be part of the law?” The answer is
to read the First Commandment. Ellen White was
right, as usual. 1 John 3:4 is the only clear definition
of sin. The Ten Commandments cover our thoughts,
decisions, words, and actions—and also our relation-
ship with our Creator. “By the law comes the knowl-
edge of sin” (Romans 3:20; cf. 4:15; 7:7). But make
no mistake, Knight is wrong; correct relationship
alone is not enough. In Christ’s strength, we must
also make constant behavioral choices. We must
perseveringly choose the right and reject the wrong.
If we do not do so, we stray from faith into pre-
sumption, and soon we are separated from Christ.
If we are lax in being guarded, soon we lose the rela-
tionship. Christ will not partner with sin.
Do not mistake Knight’s objective. It is the same
soul-deadening approach all the new theology advo-
cates use: lessen the importance of obedience to the
law of God. Liberals continually downplay practical
obedience to Scriptural principles.
“Once sin is defined in terms of such things as
wearing costume jewelry or certain dietary habits,
it is essentially ‘contained’ in that definition, and
one can go about his or her life without worrying
about it. In other words, once ‘sin’ is contained in
the concept of wearing jewelry, I can then feel good
about driving any type of car I like or wearing the
finest suits.”—Pharisee, 51.
Sounds ridiculous and it is: the thinking that,
because you practice not wearing jewelry, therefore
you will like to purchase expensive automobiles. This
type of logically disconnected exaggeration is common
to new theology preaching. Truth marches down a
straight path; error likes to be circuitous.
Repeatedly, Knight tells the reader that atten-
tion to details is not essential. Merely love God,
and do not concern yourself about what you eat or
how you live. In order to establish this point, he tor-
tures logic in a variety of ways. Here is one example:
“Unfortunately, the qualitative approach [obey-
ing God’s law] is beyond mere human effort. It de-
pends on God’s grace in ways that are not needed
in the smaller-and-smaller-units approach. For ex-
George Knight and the Sin Problem
ample, I can stop eating granola between meals on
my own steam.”—Pharisee, 52.
Ellen White repeatedly declares that we are on
“enemy ground.” This life is a battlefield, and people
are being taken by the enemy everyday. Let us not
make light of the devil or of sin. We need God’s help
everyday.
Thus we find that Knight has changed the defi-
nition of sin to something else. In so doing, he
weakens the necessity of obeying the Written Word.
THE NATURE OF LAW
Let us now consider what he has to say about
the law. We will find he has changed that defini-
tion also!
In chapter 2 of his book, I Used to be Perfect,
Knight tells us we no longer need concern ourselves
with the Ten Commandments, for all we need is the
law of love.
If that is so, why did the Lord give us the Ten
Commandments? I ask you: Is it not better to sub-
mit to God’s plans for our lives rather than Knight’s
redefinition of those plans?
“As Seventh-day Adventists, we love God’s laws,
and many of us get quite excited about such things
as commandments and rules and regulations. Be-
yond that, we are justifiably exuberant when we
glimpse ourselves in end-time prophecy in rela-
tionship to the commandments of God.”—Perfect,
21.
After quoting Revelation 12:17 and 14:12, Knight
tells us we have the wrong definition of “law.”
“I will never forget the shock I experienced when
I discovered that the Ten Commandments were
not the real law. In fact, . . the Ten Command-
ments might be viewed as a late development . .
The law expressed in the Ten Commandments is
neither eternal nor universal when we think in ga-
lactic terms.”—Perfect, 22.
So we can set aside God’s ten rules for our lives,
now that we are thinking in “galactic terms”? He then
quotes a passage which we are all well-acquainted
with:
“The law of God existed before man was cre-
ated. The angels were governed by it . . After Adam’s
sin and fall nothing was taken from the law of God.
The principles of the ten commandments existed
before the fall, and were of a character suited to
the condition of a holy order of beings.”—3 Spiri-
tual Gifts, 295.
There is nothing shocking about the above state-
ment, and there is nothing in it which Knight should
twist into a belittling of the Ten Commandments! It
is true that the angels did not need the Seventh
Commandment, since they did not marry. But we
need it. Are we to imagine that we can now rise to
a “galactic view” and ignore it?
Knight is determined that we underrate the law
3
and obedience to it.
“One of the foundational problems of New Tes-
tament Pharisaism was the atomization of sin into
a series of actions. The atomization of sin is di-
rectly related to the atomization of law and righ-
teousness.”—Perfect, 27.
As do all new theology enthusiasts, Knight la-
bels as “legalists” those who stand firmly in de-
fense of God’s law and obedience to it.
“Legalists love to talk about negative and minute
behaviors.”—Perfect, 30.
What is all this about “atomization” and “negative
and minute [tiny] behaviors”? Throughout these two
books, Knight is directing the reader toward general-
izing Christian living into a mushy syrup. In effect, he
says, “Do not stand for anything, do not do anything;
just love. There are no distinctive sins and no tan-
gible law, just nice platitudes and galactic views.”
If you believe in reading the Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy, you are considered a legalist who dwells
on the negative side and engages in minute behav-
iors. You are said to have atomized Christianity into
particles of obedience.
—Yet when we read the Bible and Spirit of Proph-
ecy, we find both are filled with principles and par-
ticles. Gems of truth, principles of eternity, spe-
cific requirements—all designed to mold us into
the image of God as we take hold of them by faith
in Christ, our enabling righteousness.
“But we like to define sin as some small nega-
tive action, because anybody can overcome a habit
if he or she tries hard enough . . I can get the vic-
tory over cheese, peanut butter, or granola between
meals.”—Perfect, 31.
New theology experts love to belittle obedience.
When they win over a student or church member
to their shiftless pattern of living, they imagine
that they have accomplished some great thing.
All the woes of mankind, at least those of Chris-
tians, Knight attributes to living a clean, obedient life.
“The negative approach to religion stems from
a negative approach to law. The world has seen
too much negative religion.”—Perfect, 31.
He even goes so far as to claim that those who try
to obey God’s Word—are only doing it so they won’t
have to fully obey it!
“We want to know the limits of love and Chris-
tian living, so that we can know when we have ar-
rived. Human perverseness loves the merely nega-
tive approach to law because it limits the scope of
righteousness. It makes it humanly achievable.”—
Perfect, 31.
Knight then further impugns the motives of those
who, by faith, obey God’s law, by declaring that, by so
doing, they reveal that they do not really love their
neighbors.
“It is a relatively simple thing for me to avoid
4 Waymarks
theft, murder, or adultery compared to the unend-
ing challenge of caring for all my neighbors as my-
self.”—Perfect, 31-32.
Where in the Spirit of Prophecy do you find its
author downgrading obedience to the Ten Com-
mandments? Why does Knight not tell us to be
sure to obey the moral code, AND ALSO be sure to
love our neighbor? No, he must content himself
with throwing stones at the moral tables, using
any excuse he can for so doing.
“Most legalists are normal humans. In fact, it is
their emphasis on human accomplishment that
proves their normality. They have merely shifted
their pride from human accomplishment in worldly
endeavors to human accomplishment in spiritual
things.”—Perfect, 32.
“One can never be saved or become perfect by
not working on Sabbath or avoiding theft. In fact,
no one will ever be saved because of what they have
not done.”—Perfect, 32.
Knight is frightened to death, lest he obey God! In
his desperate state of mind, he fears he might be clas-
sified as a perfectionist, if he keeps the Bible Sab-
bath or avoids stealing.
Truly, this is strange thinking: If one can never
be saved, because during his life he kept the Sab-
bath and did not steal from others,—can he then
be saved because he doesn’t?
Knight uses the excuse that he is trying to di-
rect our thoughts to higher objectives, such as lov-
ing God and others. —But no one can reach such
objectives by making light of obedience to the Ten
Commandments.
It is because of such thinking as this that fewer of
the faithful are attending the yearly camp meetings.
They know they will encounter preachers trying to
pound such fallacies into their minds and into the
minds of their youth. This is a tragedy, yet separation
is gradually occurring because the faithful are deter-
mined to live pure, clean lives that are uncontami-
nated by the “sin and be saved” heresies which are
being increasingly taught in our pulpits.
“What we often fail to realize is that we can be
quite zealous in keeping God’s laws while utterly
and totally failing in keeping God’s law.”—Perfect,
33.
By this, Knight means that some are obeying the
Decalogue while not obeying the “law of love.” We agree
that we are to love God and the brethren (indeed,
only those who love God can truly keep His law),—
but where in Knight’s writings do we find that it is
right to obey the Ten Commandments. Where does
he commend us for so doing? Instead, everything
More WAYMARKS - from —————————— PILGRIMS REST
connected with those sacred commands is bad,
bad, bad. Such a spirit is not genuine Christianity. It
is antinomian heresy.
Chapter 3 of The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Ho-
liness also deals with the law of God. In another of
his mystifying statements, Knight says this:
“One of the greatest and most serious confu-
sions of religious history is the failure to make a
clear distinction between what one must do to be
moral and what one must do to be saved. That
was the deadly mistake of the Pharisees. Not real-
izing the depth of the sin problem, they believed
that they could become righteous by keeping the
law.”—Pharisee, 65.
We are told that there is a difference between
being moral and being saved. We simple Christians
thought they were somehow connected. So we learn
we must separate the two, or we will become Phari-
sees.
This is the kind of foolishness which Knight is
teaching to the future ministers of Adventism, who
journey to Andrews from all over the world to attend
its Seminary.
Such strange logic: Did you know that it is dan-
gerous to keep the law? You might become righ-
teous! Then people will call you a Pharisee. And
Pharisees are bad because they were interested in
promoting morality!
The truth is that, regardless of what the Andrews’
history professor tells us, the Pharisees in Christ’s
time were not promoting morality, and they were not
promoting obedience to God’s Law or the Old Testa-
ment writings; they were urging senseless regulations
which had nothing to do with Scripture nor with god-
liness. Theirs was a counterfeit religion.
If you want to know the truth about the Phari-
sees, read the four Gospels and Desire of Ages. You
will not learn the truth about those men from Knight’s
handbook on Pharisees.
“The Ten Commandments are not the ‘real law.’
In fact, in the context of universal history through-
out eternity, they might be termed a late develop-
ment . . The law as expressed in the Ten Com-
mandments is neither eternal nor universal. Take
the fourth commandment, for example. It plainly
states that the Sabbath was given as a memorial
of the creation of the planet Earth.”—Pharisee, 65.
What is his point? The same which we find through-
out his books: Belittle the law, push down the need to
sacredly observe its precepts, set those statutes aside
and come up to a higher plane of living. The liberals
tell us that the Sabbath is only for our world, and it is
Continued on the next tract
HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305 USA
George Knightand the Sin Problem
Continued from the preceding tract in this series
only Pharisees who keep it well. So do not be too
strict about observing it.
In earlier studies, we noted how other new theol-
ogy books, published by the denomination, declare
that obedience to God’s law is actually sinful. (Helmut
Ott’s book was especially full of that concept.) Knight
brings out this thought also.
“Richard Rice notes that ‘legalism is incredibly
naive’ because it ‘drastically underestimates the
effects of sin on human beings’ . . ‘But legalism,’
claims Rice, ‘is more than naive; it is downright
sinful. It arises from the proud assumption that
fallen human beings can do something on their
own to merit divine favor, when nothing could be
farther from the truth.’ ”—Pharisee, 71.
THE NATURE OF TEMPTATION
Chapter 4 in Knight’s book, I Used to Be Perfect,
is entitled Temptation is not Temptation. And that is
the subject. Did you know that, according to the lib-
erals, temptation is not really temptation? Just as
sin is not sin, and law is not law, so temptation is not
temptation.
“Temptation is not temptation. To hear some
people talk, one would guess that temptation has
to do with whether one should steal a car, go to a
movie, eat too much sugar, or play golf too often.
Those things may be temptations, but they are not
temptation.”—Perfect, 53-54.
Sound confusing? It is. Why do people even buy
such books, when they have thousands of pages of
pure, unwinnowed wheat in the Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy? God’s Word is a rich treat, a feast,—and
it is not confusing.
Anyone reading the above paragraph, and half-
heartedly considering it, will be confused enough that
he will be ready for the error which follows. Although
Knight may not know it, he is employing one of
the techniques used by counselors and pastors
trained in Ericksonian hypnosis (acquired through
LEAD and NLP training courses). Muddle the mind
and then infuse new thoughts. (See my Hypnotism
Tractbook for more on this.)
Knight relies on a favorite device of new theology
writers and speakers: He maintains that Jesus was
tempted differently than we are, in ways we cannot be
tempted.
His objective here is to make Jesus different
than us. It is part of the overall plan to make the
nature and life of Christ so different and super-
natural that He cannot be our example. Sure,
Jesus resisted sin, they say, but He was divine and
had special abilities we lack. He resisted different sins.
“Jesus had been without food for more than a
month when the temptation concerning the bread
came to Him. Certainly it must have been an at-
tractive suggestion, but we miss the point if we see
it merely as a temptation to satisfy His appetite.
That was a temptation with a small t, not a Temp-
tation with a capital T. The real temptation was
to reverse the self-emptying of Philippians 2 by
using His divine power to satisfy His personal
needs. That, of course, would have meant that He
was not facing the world like other people. Under-
lying the temptation was the subtle insinuation that
‘if’ He were truly God He could use His special
powers for Himself instead of relying on the Fa-
ther.”—Perfect, 55-56.
For the truth of the matter, read God’s Word—
for that is the only place you will ever find truth
with certainty. You will not find it in my writings
or anyone else’s! Only in the Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy will you find correct statements on any
religious, personal, historic, or scientific matter.
In making such a statement, do I exalt God’s Word
too highly? No I do not! You cannot exalt Scripture
too highly! We are told by Inspiration that the Word
of God is unerring. Read it, trust it, and throw out
the books by the skeptics, who tell you they have
advanced light which is a step above that found in
God’s own written revelations.
For a true statement regarding the temptation of
Christ in the wilderness, read Matthew 4:1-11 and
Luke 4:1-13. For a much more detailed (and equally
inspired) understanding of Christ’s temptation in the
wilderness, read chapters 12 and 13 in Desire of Ages
(pages 114-131). Nowhere in the Inspired Writings
will you find one hint that Christ’s temptation in
the wilderness was not an example for us or that
His temptations were not the kind we experience.
Jesus won the victory right where we are—and “we”
means everyone in the human race who has ever lived,
or ever will live on Planet Earth. He won it in our
flesh.
He conquered on the very points on which we
fail; he did not overcome on the points on which a
God can fail! It is the Catholics and the new theol-
ogy advocates who make Christ different than us.
6 Waymarks
By decree of the Council of Trent, Christ was born
differently, for He had an immaculate [i.e., sinless]
mother, and therefore could not sin. From teachings
in the theology departments of outside universities,
our new theology teachers and their protégé pas-
tors teach that Christ was given a different nature
at birth which no one else born after the entrance
of sin in the Garden of Eden ever had.
Knight not only ascribes Christ’s special tempta-
tion as being different than ours, he says most of His
other temptations were also.
“Most of His temptations are not even tempta-
tions to me, because I lack the ability to respond
to them successfully.”—Perfect, 56.
Knight defines Christ’s “special temptation” as
being the fact that He had to be willing to die.
“Christ’s special temptation throughout His life
was to avoid death on the cross. This was the es-
sential power of the bread temptation in the wil-
derness.”—Perfect, 56.
That is contrived reasoning, the kind that men
with worldly doctorates like to invent. In the total
surrender required to enter the Christian life, the
soul must accept the fact that he may have to die
for his faith. Anyone not willing to pick up his cross
and follow after Jesus is not a true disciple. Christ
Himself said so (Matthew 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34;
10:21; Luke 9:23; 14:27). And where is he following
Jesus, to the death? How many times must Christ
say it before Knight will believe it? In order to enter
life, a Christian must expect persecution, imprison-
ment, and an eventual death at the hands of a cruel
mob. Many have received it. Christ’s temptation, as
to whether or not He should forego the cross, is
for each of us also.
“He that taketh not his cross, and followeth af-
ter Me, is not worthy of Me.”—Matthew 10:38.
Indeed, if we do not do so, we cannot be saved!
“If any man will come after Me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For
whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and who-
soever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall
a man give in exchange for his soul?”—Matthew
16:24-26.
Unfortunately, Knight was trained in the uni-
versities, and they were so busy instructing him in
the words of Catholic, Protestant, and atheist theo-
logians, they forgot to teach him the words of
Christ.
“The cross does not hold much meaning for me
in the twentieth century. I’ve never seen a crucifix-
ion.”—Perfect, 57.
For Knight, Matthew 16:24-26 is meaningless. He
explains why:
“ I’ve never seen a crucifixion. Jesus had. When
He saw a knot of Roman soldiers escorting a man
dragging a cross through the streets, He knew it
was a one-way trip . . He had no desire to exit the
world by the way of the excruciating death of the
cross.”—Perfect, 57.
Thus Knight declares that Matthew 16:24-26
only applies to those who have witnessed a cru-
cifixion! Therefore, according to Knight, it is not a
temptation to people today.
More strange logic acquired in the shallow-brained
universities. Really now, must I witness a murder, be-
fore I can be tempted to murder someone? Must I
view an adultery in progress, before I can be tempted
to violate the Seventh Commandment?
Beware of the schools and the schoolmen. They
are generally so mixed up in their thinking, they
are blind guides groping around for people to lead
down the pathway toward the kingdom of God.
Soon they all land in the ditch.
In discussing his revised view of the nature of
temptation, Knight returns to his revision of the na-
ture of sin. His position is one shared in common
with other new theology teachers: Sin is not “the trans-
gression of the law” (1 John 3:4; GC 493), but sepa-
ration from God is.
“Adam and Eve . . fell when they redirected their
love from God to themselves. Sin is a rebellious,
broken relationship with God that puts my self
and my will on the throne of my life. Out of that
broken relationship flows a series of sinful ac-
tions.”—Perfect, 59-60.
The new theology bases this strange idea on a verse
in Isaiah:
“Your iniquities have separated between you and
your God, and your sins have hid His face from
you, that He will not hear.”—Isaiah 59:2.
“See,” they say, “that proves it!” Far from it, Isaiah
59:2 explains a cause-effect relationship. The cause
is sin (which 1 John 3:4 defines as the transgres-
sion of the law), the effect is separation from God.
Sin is the breaking of God’s moral code, the result is
a separation between us and our God. So it was in
the Garden, and so it has been ever since.
What Knight and his associates are trying to
do is to separate “sin” from behavior. They want to
make it a philosophical essence, which they can
link to Augustine’s Original Sin error (of inborn
sin, inherited from Adam). They want to remove
sin from the realm of personal actions—and our
responsibility to make sure all our actions are
proper.
If you are not responsible for your actions, then
you do not have to worry about obeying the Ten
Commandments. According to Knight and his asso-
ciates, all you really need concern yourself about is
not having faith. “Faith, only faith,” is the cry of the
liberals. “Only believe” and you will be saved.
George Knight and the Sin Problem 7
As Knight views it, setting aside behavioral con- “At the heart of all false avenues to sanctified
cerns is the key to understanding temptation and sin— living is a trivialization of righteousness through a
and even faith in Christ. breaking up of the righteous life into manageable
“Our great temptation is not to eat this item or blocks of behavior. Such an approach is directly
to do that thing, but to break our relationship with related to the atomization of sin and law we dis-
the Father, to step outside the faith relationship cussed earlier. It lends itself nicely to ‘clothesline
and to enter the sin relationship of rebellion.”— preaching’ and making such items as dietary re-
Perfect, 62. form and a person’s outward dress the things to
THE NATURE OF
focus on in discussions of living the Christian life.
JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION That type of ‘sanctification’ has an excellent his-
toric pedigree. It was at the center of Pharisaic Ju-
Just as he tries to change the definition of sin, daism.”—Perfect, 45.
righteousness, law, and temptation, so Knight ALSO
According to Knight, “sanctification” sounds pretty
tries to change the meaning of justification and sanc-
bad, doesn’t it? Something to stay away from. If you
tification.
think too much about doing good, or talking about it,
An ongoing concern of new theology zealots is
you could end up being a bad person. He views up-
to tear down sanctification and exalt justification.
holding standards as Pharisaical living.
Actually, in real life the two cannot be separated.
But how can you be bad by doing good? Appar-
As far as your daily life is concerned, justifica-
ently, in the upside down world of Christian liber-
tion simply means coming to God, forgiveness for
alism, you can be saved while doing bad, but lost
the past and acceptance by Him; whereas sanctifi-
by doing good.
cation means Christ-empowered obedience, growth
We all recognize that a basic factor in genuine
in grace, and an ever-deepening walk with God.
Christian living is sharing one’s faith and helping oth-
George Knight gives to chapter 3 of I Used to be
ers to live clean lives. But Knight infers that you can-
Perfect and chapter 4 of The Pharisee’s Guide to Per-
not do that effectively if you are carefully observing
fect Holiness the same title: Justification, the Work
God’s law.
of a Lifetime/ Santification, the Work of a Moment.
Did you know that when, in the strength of Christ
You will note that, both in consecutive order and
you try to obey His Inspired Books,—you are lower-
length of duration—in his title, justification is exalted
ing your standards? Read this:
and sanctification is downplayed. This, of course, is
“The ‘benefit’ in the trivialization of sanctifica-
in marked contrast with the Spirit of Prophecy state-
tion and negative approaches to the topic is that
ment that “sanctification is the work of a lifetime.”
they lower the standard to the place where it is
She repeatedly emphasizes the fact.
conceivably possible to perfectly keep the various
In reality, both are the work of a lifetime. We
laws, rules, and regulations.”—Perfect, 45.
must ever be coming to God, and we must ever
Horrors! You might actually correctly obey some
remain by His side. But, in that title, Knight wants
of God’s rules for your life! But, in so doing, you
to emphasize his disgust with that famous divinely
trivialize sanctification.
given aphorism, “sanctification is the work of a life-
How is this for mixed-up theological foolishness?
time.” By his title, he is saying that sanctification—
On the next page, Knight contends that, instead
obedience by faith to the law of God—is so unimpor-
of obeying God’s law, we should instead just love Him.
tant, that it is of momentary consequence while justi-
—We fully agree that we should love Him, and we
fication—forensic forgiveness—alone takes you down
further maintain that we can only obey His laws as
the Christian path to heaven.
we love Him. But never in God’s holy Word are we
Now it is an error to teach that we only need jus-
told to love Him instead of obeying His laws! See
tification at the beginning of our walk with God. That
1 John 2:4-5.
is what the once-saved-always-saved Baptists believe.
But it is equally an error, as the new theology would
In his book, The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Ho-
have us imagine, that about all we need is justifi-
liness, Knight enters new fields of condemnation of
cation!
clean, godly, obedient living.
Keep in mind that, as far as our daily lives are
concerned, justification = coming to God and renew- “For advocates of this way of thinking, the very
ing our relationship to Him. We do this anew every essence of Christian life is some form of law keep-
morning, throughout the day, and whenever we trans- ing. For some it is monkish ascetism, while for
gress. It is an ongoing way of life to the Christian. In others it may be dietary perfectionism, but for all
contrast, Sanctification = remaining by His side and the new law becomes a fetish that stands at the
obeying His Written Word. Apart from Him, moment center of their religious experience. ‘Mankind,’
by moment, we have no justification and no sanctifi- penned Leon Morris, has a fiendish ingenuity in
cation. The two go together, and are inexorably linked. discovering ways of bringing itself into bond-
age .”—Pharisee, 105-106.
8 Waymarks
“For too many people, Christian living consists
in seeking to be ‘good by not being bad’ and by
building moral fences so that they will have the
security of knowing just where to stop in their ap-
proach to what might be considered a sin.”—Phari-
see, 113.
Next, Knight turns his guns on those who try to
live healthfully.
“ ‘Pharisaic athletes’ are still alive and active in
the last decade of the twentieth century. Of course,
they are no longer as concerned with the size of a
rock one can lawfully carry on the Sabbath day as
were the historic Pharisees . .
“It is the paradox of rigid health reform that the
better you get at it, the less healthy you look . .
Then there are achievements related to eating be-
tween meals. In some circles this vice is appar-
ently viewed as one of the ultimate sins . . If one
were to ask such individuals the rationale for such
activity, they would probably reply that they were
seeking to develop Christ-like characters. Some
might even indicate that when they have ‘perfectly
reproduced’ the ‘character of Christ,’ He will come
again. At any rate, that is what I used to tell people
a few years back when I was more fully on that
particular road to ‘Christ-likeness.’ ”—Pharisee,
131-132.
Well, at least Knight admits he is no longer on
the path. But did he have to trample down that
wonderful statement in Christ’s Object Lessons,
page 69, in order to emphasize his separation from
historic Adventism?
In the very next paragraph, Knight amplifies on
the looseness in living he now believes to be the cor-
rect road to heaven.
“Of recent years I have been somewhat troubled
concerning how the biblical Jesus, who came ‘eat-
ing and drinking’ and fellowshiping with ‘tax col-
lectors and sinners’ in His reaching out ‘to seek
and to save the lost,’ could possibly be the model
for such ‘spiritual’ attitudes and activities as those
listed above. I have also been perplexed over how
to line up such approaches to Christianity with the
apostle Paul, who flatly stated that ‘the kingdom
of God is not food and drink but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.’ ”—Pharisee,
132.
Always inculcating subtle doubts, encouraging
disbelief in the Spirit of Prophecy, seeing evil in doing
good. Offering the hope of a higher plane of living while
leading families and young people away from God’s
Word. Those who are intrigued by the liberal diatribe
enter a path which will gradually lead them down to
ruin.
More WAYMARKS - from —————————— PILGRIMS REST
As his guidebook to Pharisaical living continues,
Knight zeros in more closely at clean, obedient liv-
ing—which he labels “perfectionism.”
“The very word joy used in that text [Romans
14:17] is remarkable, since I can often tell who in
a camp-meeting audience is working hardest at
perfection by the sullen expression on their faces.
I get the impression that being perfect is frightfully
serious business.”—Pharisee, 132.
As Knight stands in front of the audience at a camp
meeting, he alternates between making snide remarks
about faithful Christians and seeking to inculcate er-
ror. From where he stands above and in front of the
audience, he is able to gaze out and see two classes
before him: one enjoying his permissive attitude to-
ward their sins and laughing at his caviling comments
about the faithful; the others, sitting there glumly,
wondering why they came and should they get up and
walk out early and go home. If you and I were in his
audience, we would have saddened expressions also.
Knight continues:
“To many such people, the word celebration is
the most diabolical word in the dictionary.”—Phari-
see, 132.
THE NATURE OF PERFECTION
Knight also presents us with a new definition
of perfection.
“The only thing one can conclude from the Bible
is that perfection must be possible, or its writers
would not have urged it upon believers. Thus the
issue is not whether perfection is possible, but what
the Bible writers mean by perfection.”—Perfect,
65.
Quoting Marvin Moore, a staunch new theology
advocate, he provides the reader with a different defi-
nition of perfection:
“ ‘Perfection is more a state of being, more a
relationship with Jesus, more a way of life.’ ”—
Perfect, 66.
The eternal theme of the liberals is that behav-
ior is not important and obedience to God’s law is
not necessary. All that counts is relationships. If I
say I am in Christ, then I am perfect.
But, adds Knight, beware of the error of think-
ing you should obey God’s Word!
“A . . misdirection of perfectionism is [becom-
ing involved in] a moralism that uplifts external
conformity to law. In moralistic perfection, every
human act becomes regulated by laws that become
increasingly complex and cover every aspect of diet,
recreation, dress, and so on.”—Perfect, 67.
Sounds pretty dangerous.
Continued on the next tract
HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305 USA
George Knightand the Sin Problem
Continued from the preceding tract in this series
The truth is that God wants His people to have
clean, godly lives. Why need anyone complain about
that? Think how it would improve people’s lives
and make families happier. Such living is not im-
possible. It can be done through the enabling grace
of Christ. Many faithful souls are happily doing it.
But Knight and his fellow travelers classify all such
attempts as a dangerous attitude of “perfectionism.”
We freely admit that a few people make a moun-
tain out of a molehill. But, in Knight’s dichotomy, he
sees only two classes: those who have “love” and those
who are obeying laws.
“The Pharisees and monks belonged to this
camp of perfectionism, and Adventists and other
conservative Christians in the modern world have
often joined in.”—Perfect, 68.
Did you know that obeying moral laws is an
apostasy we got from the Greeks? That is what
Knight tells us as he continues roundly condemning
obedience under the guise of “perfectionism.”
“The Bible knows nothing of the Greek absolutist’s
definition of human perfection. It is high time that
Adventists realize that the influence of Greek phi-
losophy in Christian theology was much broader
than the condition of people in death. Another part
of that apostasy was the imposition of absolutist,
static definitions of perfection over dynamic He-
brew and New Testament ideas. The ascetic life of
the monk in the Middle Ages was one result of that
verbal confusion. While most Adventists are not
tempted to join a monastery, many have been led
astray by the definition of perfection that under-
lies that medieval institution.”—Perfect, 68-69.
Good is transposed to bad, and vice-versa. The
new theology is Christianity; obeying God’s Word
is monkish, Catholic, Grecian.
On page 75, Knight says Christians can be “sinless,
even though they still commit acts of sin for which
they need to be forgiven.” He continues:
“Thus sinlessness is not only a possibility in
the present life but a biblical promise and de-
mand.”—Perfect, 75.
Sounds good, but Knight’s brand of “sinless-
ness” is one in which we keep sinning! He concludes
the chapter on perfection with this summary state-
ment:
“Thus we can be perfect or sinless in attitude
without being perfect or sinless in action.”—Per-
fect, 78.
In The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Holiness,
Knight assigns the closing four chapters to “perfec-
tion.”
“Early in my Christian experience I arrived at
the ‘Pharisaic paradox of perfection.’ Having set
out to be the first sinlessly perfect Christian since
Christ, I eventually came to the ultimate frustra-
tion of my life: The harder I tried, the worse I be-
came.”—Pharisee, 149.
This is an unfortunate tragedy. George Knight was
obviously trying to carry out a better-living program
in his own strength. But the yoke of obedience is
easy when we are in love with Jesus. In His en-
abling strength, we can do all that God asks us in
His Word.
It is not difficult to live in Christ and obey His
Inspired Writings. Obedience by faith is an ongoing
challenge, and requires a continual clinging to Jesus.
But it can be done as, hand in hand, we walk for-
ward, trusting in His enabling grace.
Satan is constantly tempting mankind that
God’s holy law cannot be obeyed, and is therefore
faulty. But neither the law is faulty nor the divine
power by which to fulfill its requirements. Any fail-
ure is our fault, never our kind heavenly Father’s.
The holy law is full of promises to those who
delight to do the will of God. It is not hard to obey
the rules of the One you love, when He empowers
you to do so.
I do believe that George Knight has misunderstood
certain basic truths. A faulty experience caused him
to attempt a reinterpretation of Scripture. Because of
this, he no longer exalts obedience to the Law of God.
Because he experienced legalism in his own life,
all he can now talk about is love vs. legalism. The
first does not involve obedience and the second is
trying to render that obedience in one’s own
strength. The middle ground—obedience to the
Father’s law by the enabling faith in the Son’s righ-
teous merits—is carefully omitted.
As Knight explains it, if we think too much about
obeying God, we are sure to get into trouble.
“Certain types of perfectionism and character
development keep us ‘thinking about ourselves. It
is self-centered, and self-centeredness is the very
thing from which we need to be saved, because it
10
is the essence of sin.’ ”—Pharisee, 149.
So obedient living is transformed into sin.
It is very unfortunate that someone in his influen-
tial position is doing this. Is it worse to curse God’s
law—the written transcript of His character—than to
curse God Himself? George Knight’s skeptical posi-
tion on obedience by faith and reliance in the Spirit
of Prophecy is injuring the souls of thousands who
listen to him or read his books.
Shall we join Knight’s camp of sinful sinlessness
and fallen perfection? I shudder to consider the
possibility. God’s plans for us are much better; let
us remain with them. They are laid out before us
in His Inspired Books.
Recognizing that the very clear statements about
perfection in the Bible are amplified even more clearly
in the Spirit of Prophecy, Knight laments:
“My first point, therefore, is one of theological
methodology. Adventists ought to go to the Bible
for their basic understanding of Christian perfec-
tion rather than to Ellen White.”—Pharisee, 170.
Beware of any teacher or writer who down-
grades the importance of the Spirit of Prophecy
writings! Flee from such people! They will lead you
to destruction.
It is an interesting fact that the Pharisees in Bible
times developed such strange errors because they
systematically set aside the Inspired Writings for their
theories, which they set down in their rabbinic books.
Knight and his colleagues are modern-day Phari-
sees. Like the hypocrites of old, they replace God’s
books with their own theories. They toss out the Spirit
of Prophecy, and then twist the Bible. The tortured
logic which emerges is a misery to behold.
“I could have a field day of fanaticism if I took 1
John 3:9 out of context.”—Pharisee, 170.
“For Ellen White, a person may be simulta-
neously sinless and not yet sinless.”—Pharisee,
170.
“People will never become perfect by avoiding
this sin and that transgression, even if they are
able to avoid all of them.”—Pharisee, 181.
“Some people would have Mrs. White and Jesus
put some form of perfect law keeping or lifestyle
into their statements.”—Pharisee, 192.
“Humans will . . never be sinless as He [Christ]
is sinless.”—Pharisee, 198.
“The Pharisaic approach to righteousness has
had a large following in Seventh-day Adventism.
That is not true only of the works-oriented righ-
teousness of pre-1888 Adventism, but in the twen-
tieth century through the writings of M.L. Andrea-
The study on pages 11 and 12 consists of the last two pages in a tract study, entitled The Man of Romans Seven
[FF–42], which was released in 1980. (see that tract)
One can hardly turn anywhere in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy—without recognizing that sin is the transgres-
sion of God’s moral law. Sin is not love, as George Knight maintains.
Waymarks
sen and others.”—Pharisee, 201.
“Some Adventists today, in the tradition of M.L.
Andreasen and his itemized version of sin and
sanctification, apparently have the same view as
the Pharisees. One gets the impression from some
advocates of perfection that the final demonstra-
tion will center on those who have a perfect diet
and flawless lifestyle.”—Pharisee, 205.
“In their self-centeredness the Pharisees made
God dependent upon them and their law keep-
ing. That very concept stands as the ultimate
Pharisaic arrogance.”—Pharisee, 206.
“No one reaches full and final perfection or
sinlessness in this present life.”—Pharisee, 211.
To Knight the wrong belief is this:
“When I finally stop doing all the wrong things
and start doing all the right things, I am perfect in
the sense that Andreasen defined perfection. Then
Christ can come again.”—Pharisee, 204.
“It is that tranformation expressed in daily life
that is the essence of character perfection. Such
people will not have become sinless in the fullest
sense of the word at the time of their death or at
the time of the second coming.”—Pharisee, 216.
The last chapter of Knight’s book, I Used to Be
Perfect, bears that title.
“The most important thing you can know
about me is that I used to be perfect. Notice the
past tense—I used to be perfect. Used to be per-
fect in a way that I’m not perfect now.”—Per-
fect, 80.
Knight then relates how, upon becoming an
Adventist, he tried to stop sinning in every possible
way, but became grouchy and hard to live with. Ob-
viously, he was trying to do it by himself.
So then he went to the other extreme and de-
cided that Christians do not need to concern them-
selves so much about the matter.
We may regret that he came to that conclusion,
but we should not follow him in his error.
—————————————————————
George Knight was correct when he said this:
“Different views of sin lead to radically differ-
ent roads to salvation.”—Perfect, 17-18.
And he was right when he said this:
“It’s no accident that the theological war in
Adventism is over the doctrine of sin.”—Perfect,
17.
Since the sin problem is what the battle is all
about, on the next page I will reprint two pages from
a study which I published back in 1980.